AddThis

Tuesday, 31 March 2009

Last night, Jacqui Smith managed to escape the media furore surrounding the expenses scandal and her husband’s taste for salacious home entertainment by stepping into the limelight at the Muslim News Awards for Excellence. There, she along with Nick Clegg, Dominic Grieve and Hazel Blears, doled out awards to Muslims selected by such ‘authorities’ as the Respect Leader Salma Yaqoob.

In a collective act of cringing obeisance to the UK’s burgeoning Islamic population, representatives of the three main political parties made fawning speeches in an attempt to ingratiate themselves with Muslim voters. David Cameron, although unable to attend, sent a special message. That we should place no trust in Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem (or should that be Lib-Dhimm?) politicians when it comes to resisting the Islamisation of our country is amply demonstrated by their own words. Jacqui Smith stated:

"Promoting dialogue and understanding is crucially important at a time when we see those on the extreme fringes of society peddling an empty ideology of isolation, fear and hatred.” [1] “The Muslim News Awards are an important opportunity for us all to recognize and show our appreciation for the valuable contribution that British Muslims make to our shared society.” [2]

Echoing Gordon Brown’s message that the Awards were now “a well-established event in our national calendar”, David Cameron’s contribution stated that “[o]ver the years the Awards have firmly established themselves in the national calendar, and have helped us to celebrate the huge contribution which British Muslims make to each and every aspect of our society.” [2]

However, the prize for most fawning mainstream politician of the evening must be awarded to Nick Clegg, who stated “These prestigious awards not only provide an opportunity to acknowledge the excellence of the individual nominees in their respective fields, but they also encourage us to reflect upon the valuable social, cultural, and economic contribution made by the Muslim community in the UK.” [2]

What were these awards for?Having read these encomia, perhaps you are inquisitive to learn what the recipients of these awards had done to merit such attention? Well, they included recognition of such good works as:

a special dhimmi award (although not described as such) for the Reverend Gilleasbuig MacMillan of St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, who in October 1991 stopped a “Service of Repentance” to allow Muslims to pray in the Cathedral “next to the altar,” which was followed by allowing “[t]he Adhan, the Muslim call to the prayer, [to be] . . . made from the pulpit.” Muslim prayers were then “performed in the midst of a Christian congregation of over 1,000.” [2]

MacMillan’s actions are startling. Can you imagine such a thing ever happening in a mosque? Of course you can’t. I may be an atheist, but I understand that the precedent that MacMillan established does not bode well for the future of his Church. His gesture has of course since been followed up by other unspecified acts of misplaced kindness towards the Muslim population.

Who bankrolled the event?Who, you might ask, is behind these awards? Well, this was not done on the cheap, for 800 were invited to attend at the Grosvenor Hotel in London. Award sponsors included the Crown Prosecution Service, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and Communities and Local Government. Admittedly, there were also some private sponsors, but the above list emphasises the heavy role of the state. So, the UK taxpayer has footed much of the bill for this useless propagandist junket.

This was yet another officially sponsored initiative to help brainwash people into thinking that Islam is a normal and acceptable part of life in the UK today. What in fact this did demonstrate, is the bankruptcy of all of our main political parties when it comes to tackling the problem of Islam in the UK and the non-Muslim world more widely.

The proponents of the Islamic political project take two approaches to achieving their ends: the swift and the slow. The former focuses upon terrorist acts and highly visible political activity, whereas the latter wends its way to its destination through demographic change engendered by differential birth rates and patterns of migration. Either way, if these approaches go unchallenged, we lose. We still have time to ensure that the toehold that Islam has in these isles is reversed peacefully, but for this to be achieved, we need the political will. In mainstream politics, this is manifestly lacking, so we have no alternative but to turn elsewhere. Let us hope that the days of such award ceremonies are numbered.

Sunday, 29 March 2009

Earlier this week Radio 4 engaged in some frankly bizarre speculative deliberations to mark that most august of events, Barack Obama’s 65th day in office. Well, naturally, this was seen as cause for some celebration by the Radio 4 ‘commentariat’, so we were treated to the Today Programme devoting Wednesday’s edition to pondering how long it would be before the UK would have its own Obama in the form of a “black Prime Minister”. To this end, they drafted in a US academic who, much to Sarah Montague’s disappointment, opined that there would not be a black Prime Minister in all likelihood for at least another twenty years.

Instead of recognising that the absence of a dusky-hued PM is down to the fact that the majority of the UK population is still, despite the efforts of the incumbent Government, still of indigenous stock (a term that the BBC pretends not to comprehend), Montague et al had to wring their hands and look for explanations elsewhere. Their preferred explanations unsurprisingly consisted of the same tired old set of misapprehensions founded upon a belief in the twin bogeys of “institutional racism” and the innate “racism” of the indigenous inhabitants of the United Kingdom. Having thus outlined their delusional worldview as if it were the real state of affairs, the discussion then led to predictably emotive pleading for special programmes to cultivate the requisite ‘talent’ in “black communities” and to fast-track black parliamentary candidates using positive discrimination.

There are a number of good reasons why we haven’t had a black PM and why we’re unlikely to have one. The proportion of dark-skinned UK passport holders remains a minority nationally; furthermore, they are encouraged by the Government and the media to channel their political efforts into communalist and sectarian modes of action and expression, thereby reinforcing existing tendencies to produce correspondingly narrowly focused ‘community’ political leaders. By definition, ethnic-minority communalist and sectarian activists are unfit for public office, because they pursue their own narrow agendas (which they perceive to be legitimate) to the detriment of the wider interests of society. Contrary to the opinion of Radio 4’s guest academic, I am not of the opinion that Keith Vaz is a man of integrity who is fit for high office.

Multiculturalism encourages anti-nationalism and a culture of grievance amongst immigrant, particularly ‘black’, populations. Such a mindset cannot produce policies and actions conducive to the national good. If we are talking about “black” in the narrow sense of people of Afro-Caribbean or African stock, the population of the former is small, and a significant proportion of this minority is governed by an anti-intellectual culture which does not encourage academic achievement. Unsurprisingly therefore, the number of potentially gifted politicians is exceedingly low, a matter compounded by the fact that the state is generally viewed with hostility by this group. As for those of black African descent, their presence in this country really is of very recent provenance, so it would be ludicrous to expect that they would have become involved in national political life. Furthermore, their primary allegiances will in the majority of cases remain overseas.

The assumption of the Radio 4 presenters was that having a black PM would be a good thing in itself. Why? Call me foolish if you will, but I think that political leaders should be chosen upon the basis of intelligence, ability and a congruence between their policies, beliefs and values and my own, not because they are held to represent an allegedly oppressed minority. Like the Marxists of old who held that there was some innate nobility in the proletariat which embodied universal human values derived from its “oppression”, the multiculturalists of today hold that ethnic minorities are intrinsically morally superior to the indigenous population, as the former are designated ‘victims’ of discrimination and oppression. Whereas the Marxists singled out the bourgeoisie for elimination, the multiculturalists have chosen the indigenous population. I for one, look forward to the day when we have not a black Prime Minister, but a Prime Minister who looks after and actively promotes the interests of the indigenous peoples of the United Kingdom.

Friday, 27 March 2009

An article penned by René Lavanchy in yesterday's Tribune claimed that any members elected on the No2EU “left-wing anti-EU platform” will not take up their seats in Brussels. Labour MEP Glyn Ford was not impressed, and asserted that this RMT-sponsored initiative could endanger his and other Labour members’ seats, and thereby let in their political opponents, including the BNP. Ford’s mendacious self-serving pleading does nothing to undermine the key reason for the creation of No2EU: another attempt by the Left to undermine potential support for a confident BNP.

The No2EU website itself makes it quite clear that one of its primary objectives is to divert anti-EU support that would otherwise gravitate towards the BNP: “Vote No2EU - Yes to Democracy to oppose the BNP and resist the threat to exploit the current economic crisis to promote racist political ends.”

My guess is that alarmed by the collapse of UKIP, sections of the Left have taken it upon themselves to stand anti-EU candidates in a straightforward exercise to siphon off a percentage of the BNP vote, which given the system of proportional representation, could have a real negative impact upon the BNP’s prospects of gaining MEPs. It will also be interesting to see how much media coverage Libertas receives should it decide to field many candidates in the forthcoming European elections. Despite UKIP’s recent effective collapse, it will continue to receive more coverage from the BBC than the BNP, as most likely will this new No2EU diversionary operation.

Well, the good old BBC, indefatigable campaigner against ‘racism’, today reported Brazilian President ‘Lula’ as stating that “This is a crisis [i.e. the global economic crisis] that was caused by people, white with blue eyes”. Can you imagine what would happen if a European head of state were to say of the dangers of Islamist terror that “This is a crisis that was caused by people, brown with brown eyes”, and then follow it up with the phrase “the part of humanity that is responsible should pay for the crisis”? Would not the BBC be thrown into paroxysms of apoplexy? I think that they might just be inclined to use the r-word. Then again, would they even report such a statement?

How strange therefore that the BBC somehow didn’t notice this blatant attempt to incite anti-white race hatred. How strange too that Lula seems to think that the global banking system is run by some clique of Aryan clichés who aren’t boys from Brazil. When we substitute an alleged victim group (i.e. brown Muslims) for “white [people] with blue eyes”, we perceive the true viciousness and venom of Lula’s statement. What is even more odd, is that Lula looks pretty damned white to me (although I must concede that his eyes don’t look too blue). The Guardian too, which expends vast energies in seeking to inculcate a sense of anti-British, anti-white self-loathing through endless editorials and stories of dubious merit, failed on this occasion to spot an example of its pet topic: racism.

So, Lula states that his answer to the economic crisis is to ensure (according to The Telegraph) that "The part of humanity that is responsible should pay for the crisis." I agree. Corrupt bankers and the transnational economic oligarchy should be made to pay, but this of course, is not the target that Lula has in mind. No. Instead, he wants to lay the blame not just upon white, blue-eyed bankers, but upon the whole white, blue-eyed population. I happen to be white and blue-eyed, and I can assure Lula that I’ve had nothing whatsoever to do with the corrupt practices of a transnational oligarchy of which leading politicians like himself are an integral component.

Not only does he want to extort money from us by attempting to create some sort of collective guilt trip (which Brown and his confederates will be all too willing to admit to and pay for on our behalf), but he also wishes to ensure that western states do not place limits upon immigration during the recession, as this would further compound the suffering of the poor. This comment hints at the truly terrifying prospect of global economic dislocation causing an even greater surge of immigration to the UK, with many immigrants hailing from the Islamic world. With our open borders policy, what kind of future does this betoken?

Why the ‘Big Three’ are Finished: E Pluribus “Dhimmitude”As we know, the Labour Party is in thrall to the idea that the ‘Muslim vote’ must be courted and appeased to the detriment of the interests of wider society. To this end it promotes faith schools, ‘dialogue’ with soi-disant Muslim community leaders, and restricts our freedom of speech and expression in the name of ‘tolerance’. This ‘tolerance’ is of course of a very one-sided variety, in which the indigenous non-Muslim population is expected to accept each and every demand made by these aggressive colonisers, lest we ‘radicalise’ them and ‘provoke’ yet more terrorist attacks. Any rationally minded person can see that if Islam were a real ‘religion of peace’ (sic) then we would have nothing to fear from criticising its tenets, history and fanatical founder. But as it is, it shows its true colours through its followers vociferously demanding the silencing of all criticism and opposition. To say that active Muslims are tetchy is putting it mildly.

As we know, the Labour Party is the most proactive of our three main political parties in promoting the Islamic interest in the UK. It lavishes money upon these cuddly-sounding ‘communities’ in order to buy their vote, often delivered to them through the post with the man of the household having cast his wives’ and any adult children’s votes on their behalf. The widespread postal voting fraud in Birmingham and Bradford bears witness to this unsavoury fact.

The Liberal Democrats are not far behind in their grovelling to the burgeoning Muslim demographic, and the Tories too are now actively courting ‘the Muslim vote’, and to this end have set up the Conservative Muslim Forum. Here, should you care to peruse it, you will find uncritical articles dealing with halal butchery and sharia banking. The Tory leadership has thus set off down the road of selling the English, Welsh, Scots, Irish and Cornish into dhimmitude. There’ll be no need for Barbary corsairs to raid the West Country to abduct and enslave Englishwomen and men in their vision of the future, for the intellectual inheritors of the Barbary slavers will have set up shop amongst us.

So, none of the big three will do anything to reverse the tide of Islamisation that we are experiencing. Labour and the Lib Dems will actively promote it, whereas the Tories, albeit slightly reluctantly at first, will join the Islamoservile fray in a bid to secure the ever-expanding and thus increasingly powerful Muslim bloc vote. For me therefore, to vote for any one of these three parties is not an option. Although each may contain individuals of merit who disagree with the mainstream agenda of their parties, they are inconsequential and will remain so.

The Islamoservile Minnow PartiesTurning to the small fry, obviously the misnamed ‘Respect’/Left Alternative is even worse than the (ex)-Labour Party when it comes to the active promotion of the Islamic interest in the UK. Many of these Leftist loons would probably be quite happy to see us suffer from a dirty bomb attack and worse. Obviously, these far-Leftists deserve to be accorded pariah status.

The Green Party is pathologically naïve when it comes to the Islamist threat, and advocates unrestricted immigration from Islamic countries, so that rules them out. It is also prone to routinely labelling critics of Islam as ‘racist’. Its choice of party colour may therefore possess an additional significance to the one originally intended. UKIP? What are they? They’ve largely fallen apart, and besides, are advocates of the same free-market fundamentalist economics that have precipitated the current global economic crisis. UKIP are now an irrelevance.

One Party against IslamisationWhat then are we left with? Which party is unequivocally against the Islamisation of the UK? To borrow a phrase from Rolf Harris: “have you guessed what it is yet?” Well, the British National Party is the only party to have placed tackling the problem of Islamisation at the centre of its agenda, and irrespective of the defamatory tide of vitriol deployed by a united front of the three main political parties and their far-left pygmy hangers-on (including bizarre monomaniac organisations such as Searchlight, UAF and Antifa), this is the party that I’ll be voting for.

So strong is the negative propaganda deployed against, and so relentless is the opprobrium heaped upon, the BNP and its membership, that the majority of people in the UK still look upon it as an object of loathing. They labour under the understandable misapprehension, given the aforementioned ideological onslaught co-ordinated through all mainstream press, television and radio, that it consists of a bunch of thuggish, sieg-heiling, Nazi-obsessed misfits, rather than the ethno-nationalist, populist political party that it truly is.

Although I realise that the BNP is not the ‘odious’ entity that it is portrayed as, my friends certainly do not, and it’s hard enough to get them to understand that Islam is a threat in this country (or indeed anywhere!) such is the intellectually stultifying effect of the drip, drip, drip of pro-Islamic propaganda emanating from the BBC and papers such as the Guardian, let alone persuade them that the BNP is not a reincarnation of German National Socialism circa 1933. I’m working on them, but it’s going to be a damned long haul. I have to though, for the sake of their kids. In the interim, I cannot tell them which party I’ll be voting for, for they would disown me. What a crazy situation!

If you take a look behind the headlines, and carefully read the routine smear stories about the BNP disseminated by the press, you will note that the headlines are written in such a way as to always associate the BNP with violence. Yet all of the violence about which I have ever read in this connection has emanated from the so-called “anti-fascist protestors” from the three organisations mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the SWP or sundry other unclassifiable leftists. Witness the recent claw-hammer attack upon BNP activist Tony Ward by an anti-fascist demonstrator.

The BNP want the UK to leave the EU and possess a vision, which I share, of a Europe of independent sovereign nation-states. Let us enjoy good relations with our European neighbours, and let’s hope that they are able to retain, nurture and defend the true rich cultural diversity that has grown up on the native soil of the countries of this continent.